St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

TREATISE ON MAN (Questions [75]-102)

OF MAN WHO IS COMPOSED OF A SPIRITUAL AND A CORPOREAL SUBSTANCE: AND IN THE FIRST PLACE, CONCERNING WHAT BELONGS TO THE ESSENCE OF THE SOUL (SEVEN ARTICLES)

Having treated of the spiritual and of the corporeal creature, we now
proceed to treat of man, who is composed of a spiritual and corporeal
substance. We shall treat first of the nature of man, and secondly of his
origin. Now the theologian considers the nature of man in relation to the
soul; but not in relation to the body, except in so far as the body has
relation to the soul. Hence the first object of our consideration will be
the soul. And since Dionysius (Ang. Hier. xi) says that three things are
to be found in spiritual substances---essence, power, and operation---we
shall treat first of what belongs to the essence of the soul; secondly,
of what belongs to its power; thirdly, of what belongs to its operation.

Concerning the first, two points have to be considered; the first is the
nature of the soul considered in itself; the second is the union of the
soul with the body. Under the first head there are seven points of
inquiry.

Whether the soul is a body?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul is a body. For the soul is the moving
principle of the body. Nor does it move unless moved. First, because
seemingly nothing can move unless it is itself moved, since nothing gives
what it has not; for instance, what is not hot does not give heat.
Secondly, because if there be anything that moves and is not moved, it
must be the cause of eternal, unchanging movement, as we find proved
Phys. viii, 6; and this does not appear to be the case in the movement of
an animal, which is caused by the soul. Therefore the soul is a mover
moved. But every mover moved is a body. Therefore the soul is a body.

Objection 2: Further, all knowledge is caused by means of a likeness. But
there can be no likeness of a body to an incorporeal thing. If,
therefore, the soul were not a body, it could not have knowledge of
corporeal things.

Objection 3: Further, between the mover and the moved there must be contact.
But contact is only between bodies. Since, therefore, the soul moves the
body, it seems that the soul must be a body.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 6) that the soul "is
simple in comparison with the body, inasmuch as it does not occupy space
by its bulk."

I answer that, To seek the nature of the soul, we must premise that the
soul is defined as the first principle of life of those things which
live: for we call living things "animate," [*i.e. having a soul], and
those things which have no life, "inanimate." Now life is shown
principally by two actions, knowledge and movement. The philosophers of
old, not being able to rise above their imagination, supposed that the
principle of these actions was something corporeal: for they asserted
that only bodies were real things; and that what is not corporeal is
nothing: hence they maintained that the soul is something corporeal. This
opinion can be proved to be false in many ways; but we shall make use of
only one proof, based on universal and certain principles, which shows
clearly that the soul is not a body.

It is manifest that not every principle of vital action is a soul, for
then the eye would be a soul, as it is a principle of vision; and the
same might be applied to the other instruments of the soul: but it is the
"first" principle of life, which we call the soul. Now, though a body may
be a principle of life, or to be a living thing, as the heart is a
principle of life in an animal, yet nothing corporeal can be the first
principle of life. For it is clear that to be a principle of life, or to
be a living thing, does not belong to a body as such; since, if that were
the case, every body would be a living thing, or a principle of life.
Therefore a body is competent to be a living thing or even a principle of
life, as "such" a body. Now that it is actually such a body, it owes to
some principle which is called its act. Therefore the soul, which is the
first principle of life, is not a body, but the act of a body; thus heat,
which is the principle of calefaction, is not a body, but an act of a
body.

Reply to Objection 1: As everything which is in motion must be moved by something
else, a process which cannot be prolonged indefinitely, we must allow
that not every mover is moved. For, since to be moved is to pass from
potentiality to actuality, the mover gives what it has to the thing
moved, inasmuch as it causes it to be in act. But, as is shown in Phys.
viii, 6, there is a mover which is altogether immovable, and not moved
either essentially, or accidentally; and such a mover can cause an
invariable movement. There is, however, another kind of mover, which,
though not moved essentially, is moved accidentally; and for this reason
it does not cause an invariable movement; such a mover, is the soul.
There is, again, another mover, which is moved essentially---namely, the
body. And because the philosophers of old believed that nothing existed
but bodies, they maintained that every mover is moved; and that the soul
is moved directly, and is a body.

Reply to Objection 2: The likeness of a thing known is not of necessity actually
in the nature of the knower; but given a thing which knows potentially,
and afterwards knows actually, the likeness of the thing known must be in
the nature of the knower, not actually, but only potentially; thus color
is not actually in the pupil of the eye, but only potentially. Hence it
is necessary, not that the likeness of corporeal things should be
actually in the nature of the soul, but that there be a potentiality in
the soul for such a likeness. But the ancient philosophers omitted to
distinguish between actuality and potentiality; and so they held that the
soul must be a body in order to have knowledge of a body; and that it
must be composed of the principles of which all bodies are formed in
order to know all bodies.

Reply to Objection 3: There are two kinds of contact; of "quantity," and of
"power." By the former a body can be touched only by a body; by the
latter a body can be touched by an incorporeal thing, which moves that
body.

Whether the human soul is something subsistent?

Objection 1: It would seem that the human soul is not something subsistent.
For that which subsists is said to be "this particular thing." Now "this
particular thing" is said not of the soul, but of that which is composed
of soul and body. Therefore the soul is not something subsistent.

Objection 2: Further, everything subsistent operates. But the soul does not
operate; for, as the Philosopher says (De Anima i, 4), "to say that the
soul feels or understands is like saying that the soul weaves or builds."
Therefore the soul is not subsistent.

Objection 3: Further, if the soul were subsistent, it would have some
operation apart from the body. But it has no operation apart from the
body, not even that of understanding: for the act of understanding does
not take place without a phantasm, which cannot exist apart from the
body. Therefore the human soul is not something subsistent.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. x, 7): "Who understands that
the nature of the soul is that of a substance and not that of a body,
will see that those who maintain the corporeal nature of the soul, are
led astray through associating with the soul those things without which
they are unable to think of any nature---i.e. imaginary pictures of
corporeal things." Therefore the nature of the human intellect is not
only incorporeal, but it is also a substance, that is, something
subsistent.

I answer that, It must necessarily be allowed that the principle of
intellectual operation which we call the soul, is a principle both
incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by means of the
intellect man can have knowledge of all corporeal things. Now whatever
knows certain things cannot have any of them in its own nature; because
that which is in it naturally would impede the knowledge of anything
else. Thus we observe that a sick man's tongue being vitiated by a
feverish and bitter humor, is insensible to anything sweet, and
everything seems bitter to it. Therefore, if the intellectual principle
contained the nature of a body it would be unable to know all bodies. Now
every body has its own determinate nature. Therefore it is impossible for
the intellectual principle to be a body. It is likewise impossible for it
to understand by means of a bodily organ; since the determinate nature of
that organ would impede knowledge of all bodies; as when a certain
determinate color is not only in the pupil of the eye, but also in a
glass vase, the liquid in the vase seems to be of that same color.

Therefore the intellectual principle which we call the mind or the
intellect has an operation "per se" apart from the body. Now only that
which subsists can have an operation "per se." For nothing can operate
but what is actual: for which reason we do not say that heat imparts
heat, but that what is hot gives heat. We must conclude, therefore, that
the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something
incorporeal and subsistent.

Reply to Objection 1: "This particular thing" can be taken in two senses.
Firstly, for anything subsistent; secondly, for that which subsists, and
is complete in a specific nature. The former sense excludes the inherence
of an accident or of a material form; the latter excludes also the
imperfection of the part, so that a hand can be called "this particular
thing" in the first sense, but not in the second. Therefore, as the human
soul is a part of human nature, it can indeed be called "this particular
thing," in the first sense, as being something subsistent; but not in the
second, for in this sense, what is composed of body and soul is said to
be "this particular thing."

Reply to Objection 2: Aristotle wrote those words as expressing not his own
opinion, but the opinion of those who said that to understand is to be
moved, as is clear from the context. Or we may reply that to operate "per
se" belongs to what exists "per se." But for a thing to exist "per se,"
it suffices sometimes that it be not inherent, as an accident or a
material form; even though it be part of something. Nevertheless, that is
rightly said to subsist "per se," which is neither inherent in the above
sense, nor part of anything else. In this sense, the eye or the hand
cannot be said to subsist "per se"; nor can it for that reason be said to
operate "per se." Hence the operation of the parts is through each part
attributed to the whole. For we say that man sees with the eye, and feels
with the hand, and not in the same sense as when we say that what is hot
gives heat by its heat; for heat, strictly speaking, does not give heat.
We may therefore say that the soul understands, as the eye sees; but it
is more correct to say that man understands through the soul.

Reply to Objection 3: The body is necessary for the action of the intellect, not
as its origin of action, but on the part of the object; for the phantasm
is to the intellect what color is to the sight. Neither does such a
dependence on the body prove the intellect to be non-subsistent;
otherwise it would follow that an animal is non-subsistent, since it
requires external objects of the senses in order to perform its act of
perception.

Whether the souls of brute animals are subsistent?

Objection 1: It would seem that the souls of brute animals are subsistent. For
man is of the same 'genus' as other animals; and, as we have just shown
(Article [2]), the soul of man is subsistent. Therefore the souls of other
animals are subsistent.

Objection 2: Further, the relation of the sensitive faculty to sensible
objects is like the relation of the intellectual faculty to intelligible
objects. But the intellect, apart from the body, apprehends intelligible
objects. Therefore the sensitive faculty, apart from the body, perceives
sensible objects. Therefore, since the souls of brute animals are
sensitive, it follows that they are subsistent; just as the human
intellectual soul is subsistent.

Objection 3: Further, the soul of brute animals moves the body. But the body
is not a mover, but is moved. Therefore the soul of brute animals has an
operation apart from the body.

On the contrary, Is what is written in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xvi,
xvii: "Man alone we believe to have a subsistent soul: whereas the souls
of animals are not subsistent."

I answer that, The ancient philosophers made no distinction between
sense and intellect, and referred both a corporeal principle, as has been
said (Article [1]). Plato, however, drew a distinction between intellect and
sense; yet he referred both to an incorporeal principle, maintaining that
sensing, just as understanding, belongs to the soul as such. From this it
follows that even the souls of brute animals are subsistent. But
Aristotle held that of the operations of the soul, understanding alone is
performed without a corporeal organ. On the other hand, sensation and the
consequent operations of the sensitive soul are evidently accompanied
with change in the body; thus in the act of vision, the pupil of the eye
is affected by a reflection of color: and so with the other senses. Hence
it is clear that the sensitive soul has no "per se" operation of its own,
and that every operation of the sensitive soul belongs to the composite.
Wherefore we conclude that as the souls of brute animals have no "per se"
operations they are not subsistent. For the operation of anything follows
the mode of its being.

Reply to Objection 1: Although man is of the same "genus" as other animals, he is
of a different "species." Specific difference is derived from the
difference of form; nor does every difference of form necessarily imply
a diversity of "genus."

Reply to Objection 2: The relation of the sensitive faculty to the sensible
object is in one way the same as that of the intellectual faculty to the
intelligible object, in so far as each is in potentiality to its object.
But in another way their relations differ, inasmuch as the impression of
the object on the sense is accompanied with change in the body; so that
excessive strength of the sensible corrupts sense; a thing that never
occurs in the case of the intellect. For an intellect that understands
the highest of intelligible objects is more able afterwards to understand
those that are lower. If, however, in the process of intellectual
operation the body is weary, this result is accidental, inasmuch as the
intellect requires the operation of the sensitive powers in the
production of the phantasms.

Reply to Objection 3: Motive power is of two kinds. One, the appetitive power,
commands motion. The operation of this power in the sensitive soul is not
apart from the body; for anger, joy, and passions of a like nature are
accompanied by a change in the body. The other motive power is that which
executes motion in adapting the members for obeying the appetite; and the
act of this power does not consist in moving, but in being moved. Whence
it is clear that to move is not an act of the sensitive soul without the
body.

Whether the soul is man?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul is man. For it is written (2 Cor. 4:16): "Though our outward man is corrupted, yet the inward man is
renewed day by day." But that which is within man is the soul. Therefore
the soul is the inward man.

Objection 2: Further, the human soul is a substance. But it is not a universal
substance. Therefore it is a particular substance. Therefore it is a
"hypostasis" or a person; and it can only be a human person. Therefore
the soul is man; for a human person is a man.

On the contrary, Augustine (De Civ. Dei xix, 3) commends Varro as
holding "that man is not a mere soul, nor a mere body; but both soul and
body."

I answer that, The assertion "the soul is man," can be taken in two
senses. First, that man is a soul; though this particular man, Socrates,
for instance, is not a soul, but composed of soul and body. I say this,
forasmuch as some held that the form alone belongs to the species; while
matter is part of the individual, and not the species. This cannot be
true; for to the nature of the species belongs what the definition
signifies; and in natural things the definition does not signify the form
only, but the form and the matter. Hence in natural things the matter is
part of the species; not, indeed, signate matter, which is the principle
of individuality; but the common matter. For as it belongs to the notion
of this particular man to be composed of this soul, of this flesh, and of
these bones; so it belongs to the notion of man to be composed of soul,
flesh, and bones; for whatever belongs in common to the substance of all
the individuals contained under a given species, must belong to the
substance of the species.

It may also be understood in this sense, that this soul is this man; and
this could be held if it were supposed that the operation of the
sensitive soul were proper to it, apart from the body; because in that
case all the operations which are attributed to man would belong to the
soul only; and whatever performs the operations proper to a thing, is
that thing; wherefore that which performs the operations of a man is man.
But it has been shown above (Article [3]) that sensation is not the operation of
the soul only. Since, then, sensation is an operation of man, but not
proper to him, it is clear that man is not a soul only, but something
composed of soul and body. Plato, through supposing that sensation was
proper to the soul, could maintain man to be a soul making use of the
body.

Reply to Objection 1: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ix, 8), a thing seems
to be chiefly what is principle in it; thus what the governor of a state
does, the state is said to do. In this way sometimes what is principle in
man is said to be man; sometimes, indeed, the intellectual part which, in
accordance with truth, is called the "inward" man; and sometimes the
sensitive part with the body is called man in the opinion of those whose
observation does not go beyond the senses. And this is called the
"outward" man.

Reply to Objection 2: Not every particular substance is a hypostasis or a person,
but that which has the complete nature of its species. Hence a hand, or a
foot, is not called a hypostasis, or a person; nor, likewise, is the soul
alone so called, since it is a part of the human species.

Whether the soul is composed of matter and form?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul is composed of matter and form. For
potentiality is opposed to actuality. Now, whatsoever things are in
actuality participate of the First Act, which is God; by participation of
Whom, all things are good, are beings, and are living things, as is clear
from the teaching of Dionysius (Div. Nom. v). Therefore whatsoever things
are in potentiality participate of the first potentiality. But the first
potentiality is primary matter. Therefore, since the human soul is, after
a manner, in potentiality; which appears from the fact that sometimes a
man is potentially understanding; it seems that the human soul must
participate of primary matter, as part of itself.

Objection 2: Further, wherever the properties of matter are found, there
matter is. But the properties of matter are found in the soul---namely,
to be a subject, and to be changed, for it is a subject to science, and
virtue; and it changes from ignorance to knowledge and from vice to
virtue. Therefore matter is in the soul.

Objection 3: Further, things which have no matter, have no cause of their
existence, as the Philosopher says Metaph. viii (Did. vii, 6). But the
soul has a cause of its existence, since it is created by God. Therefore
the soul has matter.

Objection 4: Further, what has no matter, and is a form only, is a pure act,
and is infinite. But this belongs to God alone. Therefore the soul has
matter.

On the contrary, Augustine (Gen. ad lit. vii, 7,8,9) proves that the
soul was made neither of corporeal matter, nor of spiritual matter.

I answer that, The soul has no matter. We may consider this question in
two ways. First, from the notion of a soul in general; for it belongs to
the notion of a soul to be the form of a body. Now, either it is a form
by virtue of itself, in its entirety, or by virtue of some part of
itself. If by virtue of itself in its entirety, then it is impossible
that any part of it should be matter, if by matter we understand
something purely potential: for a form, as such, is an act; and that
which is purely potentiality cannot be part of an act, since potentiality
is repugnant to actuality as being opposite thereto. If, however, it be a
form by virtue of a part of itself, then we call that part the soul: and
that matter, which it actualizes first, we call the "primary animate."

Secondly, we may proceed from the specific notion of the human soul
inasmuch as it is intellectual. For it is clear that whatever is received
into something is received according to the condition of the recipient.
Now a thing is known in as far as its form is in the knower. But the
intellectual soul knows a thing in its nature absolutely: for instance,
it knows a stone absolutely as a stone; and therefore the form of a stone
absolutely, as to its proper formal idea, is in the intellectual soul.
Therefore the intellectual soul itself is an absolute form, and not
something composed of matter and form. For if the intellectual soul were
composed of matter and form, the forms of things would be received into
it as individuals, and so it would only know the individual: just as it
happens with the sensitive powers which receive forms in a corporeal
organ; since matter is the principle by which forms are individualized.
It follows, therefore, that the intellectual soul, and every intellectual
substance which has knowledge of forms absolutely, is exempt from
composition of matter and form.

Reply to Objection 1: The First Act is the universal principle of all acts;
because It is infinite, virtually "precontaining all things," as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v). Wherefore things participate of It not as a
part of themselves, but by diffusion of Its processions. Now as
potentiality is receptive of act, it must be proportionate to act. But
the acts received which proceed from the First Infinite Act, and are
participations thereof, are diverse, so that there cannot be one
potentiality which receives all acts, as there is one act, from which all
participated acts are derived; for then the receptive potentiality would
equal the active potentiality of the First Act. Now the receptive
potentiality in the intellectual soul is other than the receptive
potentiality of first matter, as appears from the diversity of the things
received by each. For primary matter receives individual forms; whereas
the intelligence receives absolute forms. Hence the existence of such a
potentiality in the intellectual soul does not prove that the soul is
composed of matter and form.

Reply to Objection 2: To be a subject and to be changed belong to matter by
reason of its being in potentiality. As, therefore, the potentiality of
the intelligence is one thing and the potentiality of primary matter
another, so in each is there a different reason of subjection and change.
For the intelligence is subject to knowledge, and is changed from
ignorance to knowledge, by reason of its being in potentiality with
regard to the intelligible species.

Reply to Objection 3: The form causes matter to be, and so does the agent;
wherefore the agent causes matter to be, so far as it actualizes it by
transmuting it to the act of a form. A subsistent form, however, does not
owe its existence to some formal principle, nor has it a cause
transmuting it from potentiality to act. So after the words quoted above,
the Philosopher concludes, that in things composed of matter and form
"there is no other cause but that which moves from potentiality to act;
while whatsoever things have no matter are simply beings at once." [*The
Leonine edition has, "simpliciter sunt quod vere entia aliquid." The
Parma edition of St. Thomas's Commentary on Aristotle has, "statim per se
unum quiddam est . . . et ens quiddam."]

Reply to Objection 4: Everything participated is compared to the participator as
its act. But whatever created form be supposed to subsist "per se," must
have existence by participation; for "even life," or anything of that
sort, "is a participator of existence," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v).
Now participated existence is limited by the capacity of the
participator; so that God alone, Who is His own existence, is pure act
and infinite. But in intellectual substances there is composition of
actuality and potentiality, not, indeed, of matter and form, but of form
and participated existence. Wherefore some say that they are composed of
that "whereby they are" and that "which they are"; for existence itself
is that by which a thing is.

Whether the human soul is incorruptible?

Objection 1: It would seem that the human soul is corruptible. For those
things that have a like beginning and process seemingly have a like end.
But the beginning, by generation, of men is like that of animals, for
they are made from the earth. And the process of life is alike in both;
because "all things breathe alike, and man hath nothing more than the
beast," as it is written (Eccles. 3:19). Therefore, as the same text
concludes, "the death of man and beast is one, and the condition of both
is equal." But the souls of brute animals are corruptible. Therefore,
also, the human soul is corruptible.

Objection 2: Further, whatever is out of nothing can return to nothingness;
because the end should correspond to the beginning. But as it is written
(Wis. 2:2), "We are born of nothing"; which is true, not only of the
body, but also of the soul. Therefore, as is concluded in the same
passage, "After this we shall be as if we had not been," even as to our
soul.

Objection 3: Further, nothing is without its own proper operation. But the
operation proper to the soul, which is to understand through a phantasm,
cannot be without the body. For the soul understands nothing without a
phantasm; and there is no phantasm without the body as the Philosopher
says (De Anima i, 1). Therefore the soul cannot survive the dissolution
of the body.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that human souls owe to
Divine goodness that they are "intellectual," and that they have "an
incorruptible substantial life."

I answer that, We must assert that the intellectual principle which we
call the human soul is incorruptible. For a thing may be corrupted in two
ways---"per se," and accidentally. Now it is impossible for any substance
to be generated or corrupted accidentally, that is, by the generation or
corruption of something else. For generation and corruption belong to a
thing, just as existence belongs to it, which is acquired by generation
and lost by corruption. Therefore, whatever has existence "per se" cannot
be generated or corrupted except 'per se'; while things which do not
subsist, such as accidents and material forms, acquire existence or lost
it through the generation or corruption of composite things. Now it was
shown above (Articles [2],3) that the souls of brutes are not self-subsistent,
whereas the human soul is; so that the souls of brutes are corrupted,
when their bodies are corrupted; while the human soul could not be
corrupted unless it were corrupted "per se." This, indeed, is impossible,
not only as regards the human soul, but also as regards anything
subsistent that is a form alone. For it is clear that what belongs to a
thing by virtue of itself is inseparable from it; but existence belongs
to a form, which is an act, by virtue of itself. Wherefore matter
acquires actual existence as it acquires the form; while it is corrupted
so far as the form is separated from it. But it is impossible for a form
to be separated from itself; and therefore it is impossible for a
subsistent form to cease to exist.

Granted even that the soul is composed of matter and form, as some
pretend, we should nevertheless have to maintain that it is
incorruptible. For corruption is found only where there is contrariety;
since generation and corruption are from contraries and into contraries.
Wherefore the heavenly bodies, since they have no matter subject to
contrariety, are incorruptible. Now there can be no contrariety in the
intellectual soul; for it receives according to the manner of its
existence, and those things which it receives are without contrariety;
for the notions even of contraries are not themselves contrary, since
contraries belong to the same knowledge. Therefore it is impossible for
the intellectual soul to be corruptible. Moreover we may take a sign of
this from the fact that everything naturally aspires to existence after
its own manner. Now, in things that have knowledge, desire ensues upon
knowledge. The senses indeed do not know existence, except under the
conditions of "here" and "now," whereas the intellect apprehends
existence absolutely, and for all time; so that everything that has an
intellect naturally desires always to exist. But a natural desire cannot
be in vain. Therefore every intellectual substance is incorruptible.

Reply to Objection 1: Solomon reasons thus in the person of the foolish, as
expressed in the words of Wisdom 2. Therefore the saying that man and
animals have a like beginning in generation is true of the body; for all
animals alike are made of earth. But it is not true of the soul. For the
souls of brutes are produced by some power of the body; whereas the human
soul is produced by God. To signify this it is written as to other
animals: "Let the earth bring forth the living soul" (Gn. 1:24): while of
man it is written (Gn. 2:7) that "He breathed into his face the breath of
life." And so in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes (12:7) it is concluded:
"(Before) the dust return into its earth from whence it was; and the
spirit return to God Who gave it." Again the process of life is alike as
to the body, concerning which it is written (Eccles. 3:19): "All things
breathe alike," and (Wis. 2:2), "The breath in our nostrils is smoke."
But the process is not alike of the soul; for man is intelligent, whereas
animals are not. Hence it is false to say: "Man has nothing more than
beasts." Thus death comes to both alike as to the body, by not as to the
soul.

Reply to Objection 2: As a thing can be created by reason, not of a passive
potentiality, but only of the active potentiality of the Creator, Who can
produce something out of nothing, so when we say that a thing can be
reduced to nothing, we do not imply in the creature a potentiality to
non-existence, but in the Creator the power of ceasing to sustain
existence. But a thing is said to be corruptible because there is in it a
potentiality to non-existence.

Reply to Objection 3: To understand through a phantasm is the proper operation of
the soul by virtue of its union with the body. After separation from the
body it will have another mode of understanding, similar to other
substances separated from bodies, as will appear later on (Question [89], Article [1]).

Whether the soul is of the same species as an angel?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul is of the same species as an angel.
For each thing is ordained to its proper end by the nature of its
species, whence is derived its inclination for that end. But the end of
the soul is the same as that of an angel---namely, eternal happiness.
Therefore they are of the same species.

Objection 2: Further, the ultimate specific difference is the noblest, because
it completes the nature of the species. But there is nothing nobler
either in an angel or in the soul than their intellectual nature.
Therefore the soul and the angel agree in the ultimate specific
difference: therefore they belong to the same species.

Objection 3: Further, it seems that the soul does not differ from an angel
except in its union with the body. But as the body is outside the essence
of the soul, it seems that it does not belong to its species. Therefore
the soul and angel are of the same species.

On the contrary, Things which have different natural operations are of
different species. But the natural operations of the soul and of an angel
are different; since, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii), "Angelic minds
have simple and blessed intelligence, not gathering their knowledge of
Divine things from visible things." Subsequently he says the contrary to
this of the soul. Therefore the soul and an angel are not of the same
species.

I answer that, Origen (Peri Archon iii, 5) held that human souls and
angels are all of the same species; and this because he supposed that in
these substances the difference of degree was accidental, as resulting
from their free-will: as we have seen above (Question [47], Article [2]). But this
cannot be; for in incorporeal substances there cannot be diversity of
number without diversity of species and inequality of nature; because, as
they are not composed of matter and form, but are subsistent forms, it is
clear that there is necessarily among them a diversity of species. For a
separate form cannot be understood otherwise than as one of a single
species; thus, supposing a separate whiteness to exist, it could only be
one; forasmuch as one whiteness does not differ from another except as in
this or that subject. But diversity of species is always accompanied with
a diversity of nature; thus in species of colors one is more perfect than
another; and the same applies to other species, because differences which
divide a "genus" are contrary to one another. Contraries, however, are
compared to one another as the perfect to the imperfect, since the
"principle of contrariety is habit, and privation thereof," as is written
Metaph. x (Did. ix, 4). The same would follow if the aforesaid substances
were composed of matter and form. For if the matter of one be distinct
from the matter of another, it follows that either the form is the
principle of the distinction of matter---that is to say, that the matter
is distinct on account of its relation to divers forms; and even then
there would result a difference of species and inequality of nature: or
else the matter is the principle of the distinction of forms. But one
matter cannot be distinct from another, except by a distinction of
quantity, which has no place in these incorporeal substances, such as an
angel and the soul. So that it is not possible for the angel and the soul
to be of the same species. How it is that there can be many souls of one
species will be explained later (Question [76], Article [2], ad 1).

Reply to Objection 1: This argument proceeds from the proximate and natural end.
Eternal happiness is the ultimate and supernatural end.

Reply to Objection 2: The ultimate specific difference is the noblest because it
is the most determinate, in the same way as actuality is nobler than
potentiality. Thus, however, the intellectual faculty is not the noblest,
because it is indeterminate and common to many degrees of
intellectuality; as the sensible faculty is common to many degrees in the
sensible nature. Hence, as all sensible things are not of one species, so
neither are all intellectual things of one species.

Reply to Objection 3: The body is not of the essence of the soul; but the soul by
the nature of its essence can be united to the body, so that, properly
speaking, not the soul alone, but the "composite," is the species. And
the very fact that the soul in a certain way requires the body for its
operation, proves that the soul is endowed with a grade of
intellectuality inferior to that of an angel, who is not united to a body.